identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
485787BFFFB9C326FF0BFD44FA02F8AB.text	485787BFFFB9C326FF0BFD44FA02F8AB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus Brookii Gray 1845	<div><p>Syntypes of Hemidactylus Brookii Gray, 1845</p><p>The species Hemidactylus brookii was originally described based on three specimens in the collection of the British Museum of Natural History (BMNH). The specimens were reported to originate from Borneo (two) and Australia (one), the latter locality doubted by several subsequent authors (e.g., Gray 1867; Loveridge 1941; Bauer et al. 2010b). Upon examination of these three specimens it becomes apparent that two morphologically distinct forms are represented in the type series, reinforcing the original statement of two geographic populations. The two specimens, BMNH 1947.3.6.47 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.49[.21.a]) from “Borneo”, and BMNH 1947.3.6.49 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.51[.21.b]) from “ Australia ” form a morphologically unique pair, which considerably differ from the third specimen BMNH 1947.3.6.48 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.50[.21.b]) from “Borneo”. There are numerous possible hypothesis for the above circumstances, but the most obvious explanation is a simple case of mistagging of specimens. All three specimens are currently maintained in their original separate jars and are individually tagged with the current 1947 labels only. There is no evidence to suggest that these specimens were individually tagged with the old (1934) labels, as the specimens do not have constriction “damage” indicative of multiple specimen tags that may have been removed. It is safe to assume that prior to 1947, the specimens were not individually tagged. Each specimens identity at that time therefore relied on which jar the untagged specimen was placed after examination by scientists. Under this circumstance, the likelihood that two specimens were misplaced in each other’s jars, is very high. In 1947, the specimens were directly tagged with details corresponding to the label on their individual jars, and at this time one Borneo specimen was in the Australia specimen jar, and vice versa, leading to the current confusion. In this case the morphologically distinct form would represent the single specimen originally labelled from “ Australia ” and the remaining two specimens would represent the Borneo species. A remark regarding this problem has been added to the BMNH specimen register upon recent notification (Patrick Campbell in litt. 2011).</p><p>In the original description, Gray (1845) neither designates a holotype nor does he describe any one of the three specimens in more detail than the others. Boulenger (1898) was the first, without explanation, to restrict the type locality to Borneo (followed by, but often incorrectly attributed to Smith 1935), either as an error, or intentionally. Regardless, the species represented by two specimens (BMNH 1947.3.6.47 and BMNH 1947.3.6.49) from Borneo is herein redescribed and retained as the material representing Hemidactylus brookii s.s. According to the BMNH specimen register and comparison with the syntypes, BMNH 1947.3.6.47 represents the specimen figured by Gray (1867:Pl. 15, Fig. 2; 1875:Pl. 15, Fig. 2 –– see here Fig. 1 A), which is here designated as the lectotype for H. brookii in order to define the morphology of this species. The third specimen (BMNH 1947.3.6.48) from “ Australia ”, representing a morphologically distinct species of Hemidactylus, is considered conspecific with H. tenkatei .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB9C326FF0BFD44FA02F8AB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB9C327FF0BF89DFBE9FE21.text	485787BFFFB9C327FF0BF89DFBE9FE21.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus brookii	<div><p>Asian Hemidactylus brookii synonyms examined</p><p>As it was common practice in the 1800s, numerous taxonomists were actively describing species, often with little or no comparison to similar species already known to science at the time (e.g., Tytler 1865). For those taxonomists not working at large museums, there was little opportunity to compare their suspected new species directly with those already described from other countries. This problem was further complicated due to the fact that many of the early species descriptions consisted of a short paragraph providing little to identify the given species from congeners. The description of H. brookii from what is now understood to be likely an introduced population on the island of Borneo, understandably was overlooked by taxonomists then working on the herpetofauna of the distant countries of India, Pakistan and Myanmar. This resulted in the description of several species which were later considered to represent a highly variable and poorly defined species, Hemidactylus brookii s.l.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB9C327FF0BF89DFBE9FE21	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB8C324FF0BFA49FBFAFE5D.text	485787BFFFB8C324FF0BFA49FBFAFE5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus Gleadowi Murray 1884	<div><p>Hemidactylus Gleadowi Murray, 1884</p><p>Hemidactylus gleadowi was described based on an undisclosed number of specimens deposited in the collection of the Kurrachee Museum (Karachi, Pakistan) (Murray 1884a). No comparison with congeners was provided in this description, however a figure was given (Fig. 1 D). There appears to be no subsequent literature in which these specimens were examined. Murray did, however, provide a relatively precise type locality, and for its time, a detailed description of his new species. Furthermore, in 1884 he provided the British Museum with two specimens which he considered representative of the species, but he did not refer to these specimens specifically as part of the type series (Boulenger 1885). Murray did not identify syntypes or type series in the original description, thus it is possible that the non-designation of these two specimens as types may simply have been due to inaccurate communication at the time of their deposition in the British Museum. By examination, these specimens conform to the original description of H. gleadowi in all characters. Kurrachee Museum no longer exists, but the type material originally held in that collection were reportedly transferred to the Zoological Survey of Pakistan (ZSP) (R. Masroor in litt. 2009). A recent attempt to locate these specimens by the staff of the ZSP was unsuccessful (R. Masroor in litt. 2009), thus I consider the type material of H. gleadowi to be lost. It is therefore necessary to designate a neotype to stabilise the nomenclatural status of the species. The only specimens in existence that can be unambiguously allocated to H. gleadowi are those at BMNH, thus I here designate BMNH [18]84.7.25.8 as the neotype. The only issue presented by this action is that the collection locality of the neotype must be adopted as the new type locality in accordance with Article 76.3 of the I.C.Z.N. (1999; hereafter referred in text as the “ Code ”). In this case, the original type locality provided by Murray (1884a) was more precise (“Rantah forests in Sind, (Jerruck Division)” Pakistan) than the locality associated with the BMNH specimens (“Sind” Pakistan). This mandatory change of type locality will not negatively effect the knowledge of the more specific original type locality for this species, and is considered insignificant relative to the taxonomic stability gained by the neotype designation.</p><p>Regarding the nomenclature of this species, the spelling of Murray’s original name H. gleadowi, was clearly intentional as he later repeats it in Murray (1884b). Boulenger’s (1885) emendation of the name to H. gleadovii was deliberate, using the emended spelling several times in the text and acknowledging the original spelling in the synonymy. According to the Code it is an unjustified emendation of the original spelling.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB8C324FF0BFA49FBFAFE5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFBBC324FF0BFD8CFAEFFBD3.text	485787BFFFBBC324FF0BFD8CFAEFFBD3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus kushmorensis Murray 1884	<div><p>Hemidactylus kushmorensis Murray, 1884</p><p>Hemidactylus kushmorensis was described based on a type series of six specimens also deposited in the Kurrachee Museum (Murray 1884b). In contrast with the above mentioned description, Murray did provide a tabulated comparison of H. kushmorensis with “allied” congeners, but excluded H. brookii . Murray also sent 13 specimens which he considered “typical of the species” to the British Museum (incorrectly referred to as “ types ” in the museum specimen register) (Boulenger 1890). These specimens conform with all defining characters in the original description. It is not likely that these specimens were actual representatives of the original type series due to difference in the collection localities. As in the previous case for H. gleadowi, an attempt to locate the type specimens of H. kushmorensis by the staff at the Zoological Survey of Pakistan, was unsuccessful (R. Masroor in litt. 2009). These type specimens must be considered lost, and the specimens of H. kushmorensis in BMNH are the only existing specimens representing Murray’s original concept of this taxa. In the following systematics section, I designate a neotype for H. kushmorensis (BMNH [18]87.9.22.8) to stabilise the nomenclatural status of the species. Again, the designation of a neotype results in a change of the type locality from “Bhaner, Upper Sind frontier”, to nearby “Ural, Upper Sind”. This change is beneficial as it provides an additional precise locality for H. kushmorensis whose geographical range was originally referred to broadly as “Upper Sind, Kushmore and Thool Talookas”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFBBC324FF0BFD8CFAEFFBD3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFBBC324FF0BFB05FEBAF870.text	485787BFFFBBC324FF0BFB05FEBAF870.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus subtriedroides Annandale 1905	<div><p>Hemidactylus subtriedroides Annandale, 1905</p><p>Hemidactylus subtriedroides was described from northern Burma (= Myanmar) based on two male specimens in the collection of the ZSI, which were previously misidentified as H. maculatus by Anderson (1879), the collector of the syntypes. One specimen was transferred to BMNH in 1906. Annandale’s short description was composed primarily of comparing H. subtriedroides with H. subtriedrus, a species which he considered to be the most similar in appearance. He even acknowledged H. brookii, vaguely stating that his new species differed by possessing a flatter and broader tail base, and that “The bulk is greater than that of H. Brookii Gray, the dorsal tubercles are larger and the whole animal is more depressed. The proportions are also different.” Annandale was mostly correct in this statement if considering H. brookii s.s., however due to the subjectivity of his comparison without quantifiable evidence, and perhaps more importantly, because one of the syntypes of H. brookii s.l. represented this species, it was later synonymised without discussion (Smith 1935). Loveridge (1941) appeared to recognise that this species was not typical of his concept of H. brookii and elevated it from synonymy to subspecific status as H. brookii subtriedroides, but also provided no justification for his action. Having examined both syntypes as part of this study it is clear that this is a distinct species from H. brookii s.s. It is here redescribed based on the BMNH syntype which is designated as the lectotype in accordance with Article 75.1 of the Code. The figure of Hemidactylus subtriedroides published soon after the original description (Annandale 1905b:Pl. II, Fig. 1) clearly depicts a specimen with an original tail, and thus is likely based on the paralectotype specimen designated here (ZSI 4135: Fig. 2 B). The reason for choosing the BMNH specimen as the lectotype, is that the preservation of the ZSI syntype is of a lower quality, with signs that this specimen is now, or was in the past not maintained in 70% ethanol, leading to minor soft tissue degradation. See subsequent section of H. tenkatei for further discussion regarding the taxonomic status of this species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFBBC324FF0BFB05FEBAF870	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFBAC325FF0BFF15FAD2FBA4.text	485787BFFFBAC325FF0BFF15FAD2FBA4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Gecko Tytleri Tytler 1865	<div><p>Gecko Tytleri Tytler, 1865</p><p>The name Gecko Tytleri was coined based on living animals in the private collection of the original author, collected from “dark cellars at Moulmein [= Mawlamyaing, Mon State, Myanmar] where the species is common”. The author stated that he had no means of comparing his animals with those already described by other taxonomists, but intended to provide each species a new name regardless of this fact. Unusually despite clearly indicating one of his species was conspecific with Phelsuma andamanense Blyth, Tytler still unjustifiably created the nomen Gecko chameleon indicating a lack of knowledge or respect for the basic fundamentals of nomenclatural classification followed by others of that period. Indeed all nine “new” species described in this paper are currently considered synonyms. Furthermore, he disregarded the generic classifications followed by others, which he was clearly aware of, and simply placed all “new” species of geckos in his collection in the genus Gecko .</p><p>The species Gecko tytleri was very briefly described and included only characters distinguishing it from other geckos in his collection. Due to the lack of diagnostic characters in the original description, several problems are associated with the designation of a topotype as a neotype nearly 150 years later. Because the specimen was collected in the cellars of buildings, thus associated with an anthropogenically modified habitat, the species to which the nomen Gecko tytleri was originally intended may not be a native species, but a representative of an introduced population from literally any part of the H. brookii s.l. range. Furthermore this population/species may or may not still be extant at this locality. It may even have been displaced by another more competitive introduced species of the H. brookii species group. I have not been able to locate any specimens deposited by Tytler from the type locality of this species in the collections of ZSI or BMNH, therefore it is safe to assume that type material does not exist for this nomen. Tytler’s name remains available, however, since this species has not been considered valid by any authors after 1899, a future neotype designation would not threaten the status of H. tenkatei (the only H. brookii group taxa observed in this study from Myanmar) as it would fail to comply with Article 23.9.2 of the Code.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFBAC325FF0BFF15FAD2FBA4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFBAC325FF0BFBAAFF3DF981.text	485787BFFFBAC325FF0BFBAAFF3DF981.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus Murrayi Gleadow 1887	<div><p>Hemidactylus Murrayi Gleadow, 1887</p><p>Hemidactylus murrayi was described from a series of 24 specimens (8 males, 16 females) collected from two adjacent localities “Pimpri and Garvi, in the “Dangs”, …., at the northwest extremity of the Syhadri or Ghat range, between Khandesh and Surat ” (Gleadow 1887). Pimpri (ca. 20°47’55”N, 73°35’00”E) and Garvi (ca. 20°50’12”N, 73°40’40”E) are two towns currently situated in the Dangs District of southeast Gujarat. Unfortunately, the repository of the syntypes was not mentioned in the description. Representative specimens are not currently present in BMNH or ZSI. Gleadow also did not deposit specimens in BNHM (Das &amp; Chaturvedi 1998), despite his later plea on behalf of the society for lizard specimens (Gleadow 1905). The whereabouts of these type specimens have not been reported and are herein considered lost. In order to clarify the status of this species in the future, a topotypical specimen should be designated as a neotype. Based on the original description, this species appears morphologically to be a representative of the “rock-dwelling morph”, and thus very unlikely to be conspecific with H. brookii s.s.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFBAC325FF0BFBAAFF3DF981	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFBAC32AFF0BF9B7FE71FDF6.text	485787BFFFBAC32AFF0BF9B7FE71FDF6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus Tenkatei Lidth	<div><p>Hemidactylus Tenkatei Lidth de Jeude, 1895</p><p>Hemidactylus tenkatei was described based on two unsexed adults and one juvenile specimen presented to the Leyden Museum, The Netherlands (currently RMNH) by Dr. H. ten Kate, from “Rotti” (Lidth de Jeude 1895). The description, though detailed, is inadequate to identify the species affinities within H. brookii s.l . The type specimens are still present in the collection of RMNH (RMNH 4353––three specimens; Ronald de Ruiter in litt. 2010). Rösler and Glaw (2010) provide a description of two topotypes, which they used to elevate this nomen as a valid species. Photographs provided to me of the two adult syntypes of H. tenkatei reveal several important characters that diagnose this species from all but one other H. brookii group taxa redefined herein. Subcaudal scales completely transverse the tail width at approx. 50% of the original tail length and enlarged femoral scales of one of the female specimens indicate seven enlarged scales on each thigh separated medially by six smaller scales. These enlarged scales likely represent the enlarged pore-bearing scales of males, separated by a diastema of non-porebearing scales. These diagnosing characters are thus far only confirmed on H. subtriedroides . One H. “ brookii ” specimen (BMNH 1926.10.30.46) from West Timor, nearby Palau Roti, was examined in this study and is indistinguishable from H. subtriedroides . Additionally, I can find no characters from the Rösler and Glaw (2010) description of H. tenkatei topotypes that distinguish this species from Hemidactylus subtriedroides, thus based on morphological evidence I here consider the two as one and the same species. The revalidation of H. tenkatei by Rösler &amp; Glaw (2010), disqualifies the possible retention of the more commonly used name H. subtriedroides as a nomen protectum (Article 23.9.1.2, 23.9.2). Chronologically H. tenkatei has nomenclatural priority over H. subtriedroides, and thus Hemidactylus subtriedroides Annandale, 1905 is here considered a junior subjective synonym of Hemidactylus Tenkatei Lidth de Jeude, 1895. The subsequent taxonomic section for this species is based on the morphological examination of H. subtriedroides types and other material as the syntypes of H. tenkatei were not directly examined in this study.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFBAC32AFF0BF9B7FE71FDF6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB5C32AFF0BFB61FC27F910.text	485787BFFFB5C32AFF0BFB61FC27F910.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus brooki subsp. parvimaculatus Deraniyagala 1953	<div><p>Hemidactylus brooki parvimaculatus Deraniyagala, 1953</p><p>Hemidactylus brooki [sic] parvimaculatus was described based on a male type specimen (RG. 15) collected from “Colombo [Ceylon]” (= Sri Lanka), deposited at the Colombo National Museum (NMSL). It is not clear from the brief description the basis for which this population was considered a subspecies of H. brookii as all of the characters stated fell within the then accepted morphological variation of H. brookii from elsewhere in its range. Amarasinghe et al. (2009) provide a figure of the holotype. Wickramsinghe &amp; Somaweera (2005) provide a photograph of a live individual and referred all populations of H. brookii from Sri Lanka to this subspecies. In this study, no specimens of the H. brookii complex from Sri Lanka were examined. In recent molecular phylogenetic and morphological analysis of Asian Hemidactylus, this subspecies was found to be distinct from other populations of H. “ brookii ”, and thus elevated to specific status (Bauer et al. 2010a, 2010b; Rösler &amp; Glaw 2010). The statistical analysis of Rösler &amp; Glaw (2010) found that the significant characters for differentiating their samples of H. parvimaculatus from Nepal H. “ brookii ” were number of lamellae on digit IV of pes and precloacal-femoral pores. Based on the redescription of H. brookii s.s. provided here, these characters completely overlap, but the two species differ slightly in other characters (see “Comparisons” section below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB5C32AFF0BFB61FC27F910	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB5C32AFF0BFD7FFEA7FBFF.text	485787BFFFB5C32AFF0BFD7FFEA7FBFF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus luzonensis Taylor 1915	<div><p>Hemidactylus luzonensis Taylor, 1915</p><p>Hemidactylus luzonensis was described based on a single female specimen (No. 1774) collected from Manila, Luzon Island, Philippines and deposited at the Bureau of Science, Manila (Taylor 1915). This specimen has not since been described in literature and was reported as destroyed during World War II (Brown &amp; Alcala 1978). Taylor (1915) provided a detailed description, however it is not possible to verify its affinities amongst the synonyms of H. brookii s.l., and thus would require the designation of a neotype to resolve its taxonomic status. No specimens of the H. brookii complex from the Philippines were available in this study. Brown and Alcala (1978) consider this species to be identical to the Bornean types of H. brookii, which at the time incorrectly included the “ Australia ” syntype, referred here to H. tenkatei . Rösler and Glaw (2010) suspect that this synonym may represent a junior subjective synonym of H. tenkatei . Herein I provisionally retain it in the synonymy of H. brookii pending a neotype designation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB5C32AFF0BFD7FFEA7FBFF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB5C32BFF0BF8C6FE92FE96.text	485787BFFFB5C32BFF0BF8C6FE92FE96.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus mahendrai Shukla 1983	<div><p>Hemidactylus mahendrai Shukla, 1983</p><p>This species was described based on four adult females and one juvenile collected from the “suberbs [sic] of Kanpur of Uttar Pradesh” (Shukla 1983). The diagnosis of the new species from congeners was based on the general descriptions of Smith (1935). The comparison poorly diagnosed this species from H. brookii s.l., and it has been regarded by recent authorities to be a synonym pending a review of the species based on examination of specimens (Zug et al. 2007; Bauer et al. 2010b; Rösler &amp; Glaw 2010). Regarding this present review, it would not be possible to assign the name to the synonymy of any of the species dealt with here without examining topotype material. If considering the defining characters used in that description, e.g., high lamellae counts and geographical proximity, this species may be a synonym of H. kushmorensis, but I here retain it provisionally within the synonymy of H. brookii s.l. .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB5C32BFF0BF8C6FE92FE96	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB4C32FFF0BFE04FAD1FD46.text	485787BFFFB4C32FFF0BFE04FAD1FD46.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus brookii Gray 1845	<div><p>Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845</p><p>(Figures 1 A, 2A, 3A, 3B)</p><p>Hemidactylus Brookii Gray, 1845:153 . (partim) Original type locality: “Borneo” and “ Australia ”.</p><p>? Gecko Tytleri Tytler, 1865:547 . Original type locality: “Moulmein”.</p><p>? Hemidactylus Murrayi Gleadow, 1887:49 . Original type locality: “Pimpri and Garvi, in the “Dangs”, …., at the northwest extremity of the Syhadri or Ghat range, between Khandesh and Surat ”.</p><p>? Hemidactylus luzonensis Taylor, 1915:93 . Original type locality: “Manila, Philippine Islands ”</p><p>Hemidactylus brookii brookii –– Loveridge, 1941:246.</p><p>? Hemidactylus mahendrai Shukla, 1983:81 . Original type locality: “suberbs [sic] of Kanpur of Uttar Pradesh”.</p><p>Lectotype by present designation. BMNH 1947.3.6.47 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.49[.21.a]), adult male, “Borneo” (= Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo), presented by Sir Edward Belcher.</p><p>Paralectotype by present designation. BMNH 1947.3.6.49 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.51[.21.b]), adult male, “ Australia ” (= Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo––currently mislabeled), presented by the Earl of Derby, presumably Edward Geoffrey Smith Stanley (Das &amp; Sukumaran 2006).</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet was originally created as a patronym in honour of Sir James Brooke (1803– 1868), an acknowledged contributor of specimens to BMNH (Gray 1845). Known as the “Rajah of Sarawak ”, formerly Governor of Sarawak from 1841, and Governor of Labuan and Consul-General to the Sultan of Brunei from 1846 (Schleich &amp; Kästle 2002).</p><p>Definition. Hemidactylus brookii can be distinguished from all currently described Asian members of Hemidactylus based on the following combination of characters: adult male SVL to 55.8 mm, TrL/SVL 38.5–38.9%; primary postmental shield width is subequal to that of the first infralabials, secondary pair broadly in contact with second infralabials; ear opening large EarL/HL 8.2–11.2%, obliquely oval; 16–19 regular longitudinal rows of dorsal tubercles, largest 6–7 times size of surrounding granules; two series of 12–13 precloacal-femoral pores separated medially from each other by a diastema of one non-pore-bearing scale, non-pore-bearing scale &lt;50% the size of pored scales, scale row bordering anteriorly the precloacal-femoral pore series enlarged, ≥ size of pore-bearing scales; 5 lamellae under digit I and 7–8 under digit IV of pes, subdigital lamellae mostly divided on digit IV of manus and pes, enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes extend to the base of the digit; tail oval in cross-section without lateral denticulation, tubercles on anterior tail portion form elongated recurved conical spines, subcaudals completely transverse the tail width from the distal third of original tail; two medium sized conical cloacal spurs.</p><p>Comparisons. Hemidactylus brookii is here compared with the morphologically most similar Asian Hemidactylus species occurring east of the western Pakistan border. It differs from H. treutleri Mahony by its smaller size, SVL to 55.8 mm (vs. SVL to 70 mm), and 24–26 precloacal-femoral pores (vs. 14); from H. gujaratensis Giri, Bauer, Vyas and Patil by its lower number of subdigital lamellae on pes, five on digit I, 7–8 on digit IV (vs. 7–9 and 10–11, respectively), and precloacal-femoral pore series separated medially by one non-pore-bearing scale (vs. at least five); from H. parvimaculatus by precloacal-femoral pore series separated medially by one non-pore-bearing scale (vs. 2–4), and 0–1 divided lamellae on digit I and 2–4 on digit IV of pes (vs. 2–3 and 5–7, respectively).</p><p>For diagnosis from H. gleadowi, H. kushmorensis and H. tenkatei see the respective comparison sections for these species.</p><p>Condition of types. Lectotype fully intact with unbroken original tail. Paralectotype (BMNH 1947.3.6.49) with a small circular piece of skin missing from the parietal region and entire tail absent, otherwise in good condition. Paralectotype (BMNH 1947.3.6.48) referred here to H. tenkatei in good state of preservation, with less than half of the tail present but detached and digit I and II of the right pes missing.</p><p>H. brookii H. gleadowi H. kushmorensis</p><p>Description of lectotype. BMNH 1947.3.6.47, adult male. A summary of mensural and meristic data is provided in table 1. A medium sized species of Hemidactylus (SVL 55.8 mm); head distinct from neck, lores rounded and interorbital region flat, forehead not concave; snout longer than orbit diameter; scales on snout circular, domed, largest on the canthal region, of subequal size to enlarged tubercles on the parietal, becoming mixed over the frontal with small granular scales; supraoculars covered with homogenous, small granular scales; dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head posterior to the orbit covered with small granular scales densely mixed with enlarged domed tubercles, size increasing laterally and posteriorly; interorbital scales 8–10 across the narrowest point of the frontal; canthus rostralis rounded; pupil vertically elliptical, with crenellated edges; supraciliaries small and rounded, size increasing slightly anterodorsally, all lacking spines; ear opening deep, oval, obliquely orientated posterodorsally, a single small tubercle on the anterior edge of the right ear opening; orbit to ear distance slightly greater than diameter of orbits; rostral subrectangular, with medial groove dorsally, extending to half of the rostral depth; rostral depth slightly more than half its width; contacted by nostrils, supralabial I, one internasal and two circular, slightly enlarged supranasals; nostrils circular, oriented dorsolaterally, nostril narrowly in contact with supralabial I, two postnasals, supranasal and rostral; two scale rows separating eye from supralabials; 9/9 (left/right) supralabials; 9/8 (left/right) infralabials; mental subtriangular, wider than it is length (MenL/MenW 77.8%); two paired postmentals, primary pair subequally in contact with each other and the mental, secondary pair not in contact with each other, ~70% the size of the first and rounded posteriorly, each postmental is bordered posteriorly by smooth, circular granular scales; several rows of enlarged elongated scales border the lower edge of the infralabials, size gradually increasing laterally from the small throat granular scales; enlarged endolymphatic sac not visible.</p><p>Body slightly compressed dorsally; ventrolateral fold absent; dorsum covered with uniform, small flattened granular scales interspersed with large tubercles, those of the nape are smallest and conical, size increasing posteriorly, tubercles of the anterior paravertebral rows are longitudinally oval with a weak median keel, laterally and posteriorly becoming more conical to transversally oval, with or without a weak keel, largest are 6–7 times the size of surrounding granular scales; 16 non-linear rows at midbody, 34 in a paravertebral line from back of the skull to the area above the vent, intertubercle distance varies randomly; lateral and gular granular scales grade abruptly into large, smooth, subimbricate ventrals; preanal depression absent; precloacal-femoral pores number 13/13 (left/ right), a single non-pore-bearing scale ~50% the size of pored scales separates pore-bearing rows; anterior scale row to pored scales enlarged relative to pored scales and adjacent ventrals; precloacal scales between the pore series and the cloaca are not enlarged relative to ventrals.</p><p>Forelimbs slender; dorsal surface of the upper forelimb covered with granular scales posteriorly, ~3 times larger than dorsal granular scales, size increasing and becoming imbricate anteriorly and ventrally, dorsal surface of the lower forelimb covered with small granular scales of size subequal to those on the dorsum and intermixed with enlarged tubercles of subequal size to those on the nape, subimbricate scales of the upper forelimb extend anteriorly onto the dorsal surface of the manus; hind limbs relatively short; dorsal surface of the hind limbs covered in small granular scales densely interspersed with larger conical tubercles, largest being of equal size to the largest dorsal tubercles, ventral surfaces of hind limbs with flat subimbricate scales; ventral surface of the manus and pes covered with smooth, rounded granular scales; digits relatively short, flattened, a small curved claw on all digital tips; distal phalanges elevated; lamellae numbering on right manus (total: divided) I (6: 1), II (6: 2), III (6: 2), IV (7: 5) and V (6: 2); and on right pes I (5: 1), II (7: 4), III (7: 4), IV (7: 5) and V (5: 2); basal subdigital lamellae narrow; interdigital webbing absent.</p><p>Tail completely original; strongly compressed dorsally and oval in cross section, longer than snout to vent length; slightly constricted at the base and tapering gradually to a narrow tip; post-cloacal hemipenal bulge distinct; two enlarged, bluntly conical cloacal spurs on each side; longitudinal middorsal furrow present on the tail, lateral furrow absent; median subcaudal series begin on the second tail segment consisting of transversely enlarged, smooth, subimbricate scales, approximately 35% tail width on the fourth segment, laterally bordered by large posteriorly rounded subimbricate scales, which rapidly decreasing in size to become small granular scales laterally and dorsally; tail segments are barely distinguishable basally becoming indistinct distally, first segment with a transverse row of eight tubercles followed by rows of six, tubercles keeled, obliquely pointed posteriorly.</p><p>Colouration in preservative: Dorsal surfaces of the head, body, limbs and tail primarily mid brown. Dorsally two transverse rows of three large dark oval blotches from the nape to anterior to the forelimb insertion. Further rows of blotches join to form wide uneven transverse bars, three on the trunk and approximately eleven on the tail; a feint dark brown stripe from the nostril across the lores to the anterior orbit and from the posterior orbit to above the ear opening; further markings if present are indistinguishable due to fading of the specimen; entire ventral surface of the head, body, limbs and tail appear plain light beige, however under magnification individual scales have varying numbers of minute black specks; precloacal-femoral pores are dark brown. Colouration in life was not documented in the original description (Gray 1845).</p><p>Variation. Variation of major mensural and meristic characters are presented in table 1. The paralectotype agrees well in overall morphology to that of the lectotype with the following deviations: left and right precloacalfemoral pore series consist of 12 pored scales each, the posterior edges of the median-most pored scales of both series are narrowly in contact with each other, the single ~50% smaller non-pore-bearing scale is present but positioned slightly forward, thus not fully separating the left and right pored series from each other; the posterior third of the mental shield is divided by an aberrant transverse groove, and enlarged tubercle absent from anterior edge of ear opening.</p><p>Distribution. As discussed above, I believe that one of the specimens collected from Borneo was at some stage accidentally mislabelled as the Australian specimen, therefore H. brookii s.s. is currently known only from the type locality of “Borneo”. According to Günther (1872), collections made by Edward Belcher, and later described by Gray (1845), originated from the “principality of Sarawak [Borneo]”, thus the lectotype locality is here further restricted to “ Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo”. Bartlett (1895) reports on further specimens collected by himself and H. Low from “Kuching” in western Sarawak and “ Sarawak ” respectively, deposited in the Sarawak State Museum, Kuching. Recently an additional population of H. brookii has been found at Loagan Bunut National Park (03°44’N, 114°14’E), Miri Division, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo (Das &amp; Sukumaran 2006). I have not had the opportunity to examine these additional specimens from Sarawak to confirm whether any are conspecific with the lectotype. It is likely that H. brookii is not native to Borneo, thus the origins of the introduced lectotype population must be determined to verify further populations assigned to this species. The recent definition of H. brookii by Rösler and Glaw (2010) was based on specimens from Nepal. In light of information provided here (see “Discussion”), the likelihood of the Nepal populations representing H. brookii s.s. should be considered tentative. The additional localities of current questionable synonyms are not included here pending their taxonomic revision of type specimens.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB4C32FFF0BFE04FAD1FD46	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB0C32DFF0BFC8FFBFDFAD1.text	485787BFFFB0C32DFF0BFC8FFBFDFAD1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus gleadowi Murray 1884	<div><p>Hemidactylus gleadowi Murray, 1884</p><p>(Figures 1 D, 2B, 3C, 3D)</p><p>Hemidactylus Gleadowi Murray, 1884a:260 . Original type locality: “Rantah forests in Sind, (Jerruck Division)”, Pakistan. Hemidactylus gleadovii –– Boulenger, 1885:iiv, 116, 129. (Unjustified emendation)</p><p>Neotype by present designation. BMNH [18]84.7.25.8, adult male, “Sind” (= Sindh Province, Pakistan), presented by J. A. Murray.</p><p>Other examined material. BMNH [18]84.7.25.9, topotype adult female, details as for neotype.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet is a patronym after Mr. F. Gleadow, Deputy Conservator of Forests and collector of the original type specimens described by J. A. Murray.</p><p>Definition. Hemidactylus gleadowi can be distinguished from all currently described South and Southeast Asian members of Hemidactylus based on the following combination of characters: adult SVL to 43.1 mm; TrL/ SVL 39.9–41.9%; HL/SVL 30–30.2%; ear opening oval; primary postmental shield width is subequal to that of the first infralabial, secondary pair broadly in contact with second infralabials; tubercles of the parietal region are of subequal size to largest canthal scales; 17–18 regular longitudinal rows of dorsal tubercles, largest 12–14 times size of surrounding granules; two series of 12–13 precloacal-femoral pores separated medially by a diastema of one non-pore-bearing scale, size subequal to pore-bearing scales, scale row bordering anteriorly the precloacal-femoral pore series of subequal size to pore-bearing scales; 4–5 lamellae under digit I and seven under digit IV of pes, subdigital lamellae mostly divided on digit IV of manus and pes, enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes absent on the basal 20% of digit length; tail oval in cross-section without lateral denticulation, TailD/TailW 71.7–84%, tubercles on proximal tail portion form short recurved conical spines, subcaudals completely transverse the tail width on the distal third of original tail; two very small, bluntly conical cloacal spurs.</p><p>Comparisons. Hemidactylus gleadowi is here compared with the morphologically most similar Asian Hemidactylus species occurring east of the western Pakistan border. It differs from H. treutleri by its smaller size, SVL to 43.1 mm [44 mm in original description] (vs. SVL to 70 mm), and total 25–26 precloacal-femoral pores (vs. 14); from H. gujaratensis by its higher number of tubercle rows across the dorsum, 17–18 (vs. 12–14), and precloacalfemoral pores series separated medially by one non-pore-bearing scale (vs. at least five); from H. parvimaculatus by precloacal-femoral pore series separated medially by one non-pore-bearing scale (vs. 2–4), and seven lamellae on digit IV of pes (vs. 8–10). From H. brookii of which it was previously considered a synonym, by smaller size, SVL to 43.1 mm [44 mm] (vs. SVL to 55.8 mm), largest dorsal tubercle size 12–14 times that of surrounding granules (vs. 6–7 times), possessing a median non-pore-bearing scale of subequal size to pore-bearing scales (vs. a median non-pore-bearing scale &lt;50% the size of pored scales), proximal four to five segments of the original tail with transverse row of eight enlarged tubercles (vs. six), enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes absent on basal ~20% digit length (vs. lamellae series extend to the base of the digit), dorsal markings composed of one middorsal and two dorsolateral longitudinal rows of small darker brown spots and blotches widely separated from each other (vs. large dark longitudinally oval blotches in three rows, some merge to form incomplete transverse bands).</p><p>For diagnosis from H. kushmorensis and H. tenkatei see the respective comparison sections for these species.</p><p>Condition of type. Neotype is complete and undamaged with the exception of the posterior half of the tail which is detached, but present with the specimen.</p><p>Description of neotype. BMNH [18]84.7.25.8, adult male. A summary of mensural and meristic data is provided in table 1. A small sized species of Hemidactylus (SVL 43.0 mm); head distinct from neck, lores rounded and interorbital region flat, forehead flat; snout longer than orbit diameter; scales on snout circular, smallest are domed, largest on the canthal region are bluntly conical, size subequal to enlarged tubercles on the parietal, becoming mixed over the frontal with small granular scales; supraoculars primarily covered with homogenous small granular scales with a row of slightly enlarged, domed tubercles running parallel to the supraciliaries; dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head are covered with small granular scales densely mixed with enlarged domed tubercles, size increasing laterally and posteriorly; twelve interorbital scales across the narrowest point of the frontal; canthus rostralis rounded; pupil vertically elliptical, with crenellated edges; supraciliaries rounded, size increasing slightly anterodorsally, all lacking spines; ear opening deep, oval, obliquely orientated, lacking enlarged tubercles on anterior edge; orbit to ear distance slightly greater than diameter of orbits; rostral subrectangular, with medial groove dorsally, extending to half of the rostral depth; rostral depth more than half its width, contacted by nostrils, supralabial I, one internasal and two oval, slightly enlarged supranasals; nostrils circular, oriented dorsolaterally, nostril in contact with supralabial I, two postnasals, supranasal and rostral; three scale rows separating eye from supralabials; 9/9 (left/right) supralabials; 7/7 (left/right) infralabials; mental subtriangular, wider than its length (MenL/MenW 85.7%); two paired postmentals, primary pair subequally in contact with each other and the mental, secondary pair not in contact with each other, ~80% the size of the first and rounded posteriorly, primary postmental pair is bordered posteriorly by two enlarged smooth, rounded chin shields three times larger than adjacent granular scales; 2– 3 rows of enlarged elongated scales border the lower edge of the infralabials, size increasing gradually anteriorly and laterally from the small throat granular scales; endolymphatic sac not visible.</p><p>Body slightly compressed dorsally, ventrolateral fold absent; dorsum covered with uniform, small granular scales interspersed with large tubercles, those of the nape are smallest, circular and domed to bluntly conical, size increasing posteriorly, dorsal most tubercles with a weak anterior median keel, laterally and posteriorly becoming more conical, all circular, largest are 12–14 times the size of surrounding granular scales; 18 distinctly linear longitudinal rows at midbody, 29 in a paravertebral line from the back of the skull to the area above the vent, intertubercle distance varies randomly; ventrolateral and gular granular scales grade suddenly into large, smooth, imbricate ventrals; preanal depression absent; precloacal-femoral pores number 13/12 (left/right), a single non-pore-bearing scale of subequal size to pored scales separates pore-bearing rows; precloacal scales between the pore series and the cloaca are not enlarged relative to ventrals.</p><p>Forelimbs slender; dorsal surface of the upper forelimb covered with smooth, slightly imbricate scales grading to small granular scales posteriorly and ventrally, dorsal surface of the lower forelimb covered with small granular scales of subequal size to those on the dorsum and intermixed with enlarged tubercles of subequal size to those on the nape, subimbricate scales of the upper forelimb extend anteriorly along the lower forelimb onto the dorsal surface of the manus; hind limbs relatively short; dorsal surface of the hind limbs and posterior thigh covered with small granular scales, dorsally widely interspersed with larger conical tubercles, largest being of equal size to the largest dorsal tubercles, ventral surfaces of hind limbs with flat imbricate to subimbricate scales; ventral surface of the manus and pes covered with smooth, rounded granular scales; digits relatively short, flattened, a small curved claw on all digital tips; distal phalanges elevated; lamellae numbering on left manus (total: divided) I (5: 2), II (6: 5), III (7: 5), IV (7: 4) and V (6: 3); and on left pes I (4: 2), II (7: 4), III (7: 5), IV (7: 5) and V (6: 4); basal subdigital lamellae narrow, enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes absent on basal ~20% digit length; interdigital webbing absent.</p><p>Tail completely original, distal half is detached but present; dorsally compressed and oval in cross section, longer than snout to vent length; slightly constricted at the base and tapering gradually to a narrow tip; post-cloacal hemipenal bulge distinct; two very small, conical cloacal spurs on each side; longitudinal middorsal furrow present on the tail, lateral furrow absent; median subcaudal series begin on the third tail segment consisting of transversely enlarged, smooth, subimbricate scales, approximately 30% tail width on the fourth segment only reaching approximately 80% tail width from the distal quarter of the tail length, laterally bordered by large posteriorly rounded subimbricate scales, size rapidly decreasing laterally and dorsally; tail segments are distinct for at least the proximal two thirds, becoming less distinct distally, first four segments with a transverse row of eight tubercles, followed by rows of six, dorsal most tail tubercles are domed to conical, laterally tail tubercles are erect conical spines anteriorly becoming obliquely pointed conical spines distally.</p><p>Colouration in preservative: Dorsal surfaces of the head, body, limbs and tail primarily mid brown. Dorsally with one middorsal and two dorsolateral longitudinal rows of barely distinguishable darker brown spots and blotches; dorsal surface of the head also with brown blotches and spots; two parallel stripes extend from the posterior edge of the orbit, the lower extending to the lower edge of the ear opening, the upper stripe reaching to half way between the orbit and the upper border of the ear opening; a brown canthal stripe from the supranasal to the anterior border of the orbit; the rostral, supra and infralabials with a large brown blotch on each scale; the upper surface of the forelimb manus and pes with fine brown mottling, the hind limb with scattered brown blotches; anteriorly the tail appears faintly mottled and faintly banded distally; entire ventral surface of the head, body, limbs and tail appear plain light beige, however under magnification individual scales have varying numbers of minute dark brown specks, most notably on the tail; precloacal-femoral pores are orange-brown.</p><p>Variation. Variation of major mensural and meristic characters are presented in table 1. Further difference from the lectotype include: contacting edges of first postmentals with each other are slightly longer than edges in contact with the mental, enlarged chin shields contacting the posterior edge of the first postmentals are replaced by slightly enlarged granular scales, secondary postmental pair in contact with first infralabials; first and third to fifth tail segments with a transverse row of eight tubercles, second segment with a row of nine and distal rows with six tubercles, lateral tail tubercles are not as pointed and more acutely angled posteriorly; no precloacal-femoral porebearing or pitted scales.</p><p>The original description is based on an unknown number of syntypes and characters which vary from specimens examined here are as follows: 13 precloacal-femoral pores on each thigh; 10–12 supralabials and 8–10 infralabials; 15–16 tubercle rows at midbody; a transverse row of 8–10 tubercles on the first segment of the tail; and 38–39 ventral scale rows. For colouration, it was not mentioned if the description provided was for live or preserved specimens (Murray 1884a) and so is provided here “Colour pinkish grey, a greyish-white line from the nostril to the orbit, bordered by a dark line above and below; three dark lines radiating from behind the orbits, the uppermost curving behind and nearly meeting on the occiput, the next or central one extends from above the ear opening to the shoulder, and the third or lowest to below the ear opening. Back with 5 imperfect transverse bands. Tail with from 12 to 15 bands.”</p><p>Distribution. This species is currently known only with certainty from the original type locality as “Rantah forests in Sind, (Jerruck Division)”. Jerruck (25°3’0”N, 68°15’0”E) is currently situated in Hyderabad District, Sindh Province in southeastern Pakistan. They were collected under the bark of Babool (Acacia) trees (Murray 1884a). The considerably less informative locality associated with the neotype is “Sind”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB0C32DFF0BFC8FFBFDFAD1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFB2C331FF0BFA07FC49FCBD.text	485787BFFFB2C331FF0BFA07FC49FCBD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus kushmorensis Murray 1884	<div><p>Hemidactylus kushmorensis Murray, 1884</p><p>(Figures 2 D, 2E, 3E, 3F)</p><p>Hemidactylus kushmorensis Murray, 1884b:109 . Original type locality: “Bhaner, Upper Sind frontier”.</p><p>Neotype by present designation. BMNH [18]87.9.22.8, adult male, “Ural, Upper Sind” (= Ural [27°54’0”N, 69°5’0”E], Sukkur District, Sindh Province, eastern Pakistan), presented by J. A. Murray.</p><p>Other examined material. Topotypes: BMNH [18]87.9.22.9–10, BMNH [18]87.9.22.11, two adult males and an adult female; BMNH [18]87.9.22.12–17, nine remaining unsexed adults and subadults, details as for neotype.</p><p>Etymology. The specific epithet is a toponym derived from the administrative division Kushmore in Sindh, Pakistan from where the original type specimens were collected.</p><p>Definition. Hemidactylus kushmorensis can be distinguished from all currently described South and Southeast Asian members of Hemidactylus based on the following combination of characters: small adult size 45.4–51.4 mm; TrL/SVL 42.7–46.8%; HL/SVL 26.3–28.2%; primary postmental shields considerably narrower than first infralabials, secondary pair broadly in contact with first infralabials; ear opening circular; tubercles of the parietal region are considerably smaller than largest canthal scales; 19–20 regular longitudinal rows of dorsal tubercles, largest tubercles 5–7 times size of surrounding granules; two series of 10–11 precloacal-femoral pores separated from each other by a medial diastema of 2–3 non-pore-bearing scales, size subequal to pore-bearing scales, scale row bordering anteriorly the precloacal-femoral pore series primarily smaller than pore-bearing scales and of subequal size to second anteriorly contacting scale row; 5–6 lamellae under digit I and 10 under digit IV of pes, subdigital lamellae mostly divided on digit IV of manus and pes, enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes extend to the base of the digit; tail oval in cross-section without lateral denticulation, TailD/TailW 51.9–65.4%, tubercles on proximal tail portion form elongate recurved conical spines, subcaudals completely transverse the tail width on the distal third of original tails (Fig. 2 E); single medium sized domed cloacal spur.</p><p>Comparisons. Hemidactylus kushmorensis is here compared with the morphologically most similar Asian Hemidactylus species occurring east of the western Pakistan border. It differs from H. treutleri by its smaller size, SVL to 51.4 mm (vs. SVL to 70 mm), and 20–22 precloacal-femoral pores (vs. 14); from H. gujaratensis by its higher number of tubercle rows across the dorsum, 19–20 (vs. 12–14) and 10–11 precloacal-femoral pores in each series separated by 2–3 non-pore-bearing scales (vs. 12–14 in each series separated by at least five non-pore-bearing scales); from H. parvimaculatus by possessing fewer total precloacal-femoral pores, 20–22 (vs. 24–31). From H. brookii of which it was previously considered a synonym by possessing 10–12 precloacal-femoral pores in each series separated medially by 2–3 non-pore-bearing scales, non-pore-bearing scales size subequal to pore-bearing scales (vs. 12–13 precloacal-femoral pores in each series separated medially by one non-pore-bearing scale, nonpore-bearing scale &lt;50% the size of pored scales), scale row bordering anteriorly the precloacal-femoral pore series primarily smaller than pore-bearing scales and subequal to anteriorly contacting scales (vs. anteriorly bordering row enlarged, size ≥ to pore-bearing scales), cloacal spurs consist of a single domed tubercle (vs. two medium sized conical spurs), ear opening small, EarL/HL 5.1–6.7% and distinctly circular (vs. large, EarL/HL 8.2–11.2%, obliquely oval), body more elongate, TrL/SVL 42.7–46.8% (vs. 38.5–38.9%). From H. gleadowi by 19–20 dorsal tubercle rows (vs. 17–18 [15–16]), largest dorsal tubercle size 5–7 times that of surrounding granules (vs. 12–14 times), 10 lamellae on digit IV of pes (vs. seven), enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes extend to the base of the digit (vs. lamellae series begins at proximal ~20% digit length), 20–22 precloacal-femoral pores separated medially by 2–3 non-pore-bearing scales (vs. 25–26 separated by one non-pore-bearing scale), tail dorsally compressed, TailD/TailW 51.9–65.4% (vs. more cylindrical basally, TailD/TailW 71.7–84%), body more elongate TrL/ SVL 42.7–46.6% (vs. 39.9–41.9%), head shorter HL/SVL 26.3–28.2% (vs. 30–30.2%), one medium sized, domed cloacal spur (vs. two very small, bluntly conical cloacal spurs), ear opening circular (vs. oval), primary postmental shields considerably narrower than first infralabials, secondary pair broadly in contact with first infralabials (vs. primary postmental shields width is subequal to that of the first infralabials, secondary pair broadly in contact with second infralabials), and tubercles of the parietal region are considerably smaller than canthal scales (vs. size subequal to largest canthal scales).</p><p>For diagnosis from H. tenkatei see the comparison section of that species.</p><p>Condition of type. Neotype in good condition with fully intact tail and no incisions made to the body.</p><p>Description of neotype. BMNH [18]87.9.22.8, adult male. A summary of mensural and meristic data is provided in table 1. A medium sized species of Hemidactylus (SVL 47.5 mm); head distinct from neck, lores rounded and interorbital region flat, forehead flat; snout longer than orbit diameter; scales on snout circular, domed to bluntly conical, largest on the canthal region, size subequal to enlarged tubercles on the parietal, immediately grading into small homogenous granular scales from the anterior edge of the frontal and supraoculars; dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head posterior to the orbit covered with small granular scales mixed with enlarged bluntly conical tubercles, size increasing laterally and posteriorly; ten interorbital scales across the narrowest point of the frontal; canthus rostralis rounded; pupil vertically elliptical, with crenellated edges; supraciliaries small, spine-like dorsally, becoming rounded and of increasing size slightly anterodorsally, all lacking distinct spines; ear opening small, deep and distinctly circular, lacking enlarged tubercles on anterior edge; orbit to ear distance greater than diameter of orbits; rostral subrectangular, with medial groove dorsally, extending to approximately half of the rostral depth; rostral depth more than half its width; contacted by nostrils, supralabial I, one internasal and two circular, slightly enlarged supranasals; nostrils oval, oriented dorsolaterally, nostril not in contact with supralabial I, but contacted by two postnasals, supranasal and rostral; 2–3 scale rows separating eye from supralabials; 9/10 (left/ right) supralabials; 8/7 (left/right) infralabials; mental subtriangular, wider than it is long (MenL/MenW 72.7%); two paired postmentals, contacting edges of the primary pair with each other &lt;50% length of contacting edges with the mental, secondary pair not in contact with each other, ~70% the size of the primary pair and rounded posteriorly, each postmental is bordered posteriorly by smooth, circular granular scales; two or three rows of slightly enlarged circular to slightly elongated scales border the lower edge of the infralabials, size gradually increasing anteriorly and laterally from the small throat granular scales; endolymphatic sac not visible.</p><p>Body slightly compressed dorsally, ventrolateral fold weak; dorsum covered with uniform, small domed granular scales interspersed with large tubercles, those of the nape are smallest and conical, size increasing posteriorly, tubercles of the anterior paravertebral rows are longitudinally oval with a weak median keel, laterally and posteriorly becoming conical to transversally oval, with or without a weak keel, largest are 6–7 times the size of surrounding scales; 20 non linear rows at midbody, 36 in a paravertebral line from back of the skull to the area above the vent, intertubercle distance varies randomly; lateral and gular granular scales grade abruptly into large, smooth circular ventrals, slightly imbricate anteriorly to almost juxtaposed posteriorly; preanal depression absent; precloacalfemoral pores number 10/10 (left/right), three non-pore-bearing scales separates pore-bearing rows; a patch of precloacal scales of subequal size to ventrals are present between the pore series and the cloaca.</p><p>Forelimbs slender; dorsal surface of the upper forelimb covered with subimbricate scales of subequal size to enlarged tubercles on the nuchal region, size decreasing and becoming granular anteriorly and ventrally, posterior dorsal surface of the lower forelimb covered with small granular scales of subequal size to those on the dorsum and intermixed with a few slightly enlarged tubercles approximately twice the size of neighboring scales, subimbricate scales of the upper forelimb extend anteriorly on the lower forelimb and across the dorsal surface of the manus; hind limbs relatively short; dorsal surface of the hind limbs and posterior thighs covered in small granular scales interspersed with larger domed and conical tubercles, largest being smaller than the larger dorsal tubercles, ventral surfaces of hind limbs with flat subimbricate scales; ventral surface of the manus and pes covered with rounded granular scales; digits relatively short, flattened, a small curved claw on all digital tips; distal phalanges elevated; lamellae on right manus (total: divided) I (6: 2), II (7: 4), III (7: 5), IV (8: 6) and V (7: 4); and on left pes I (6: 2), II (8: 5), III (8: 5), IV (10: 4) and V (6: 3); basal subdigital lamellae narrow and extend to the base of digit IV on pes; interdigital webbing absent.</p><p>Complete original tail; strongly compressed dorsally and oval in cross section, longer than snout to vent length; slightly constricted at the base and tapering gradually to a narrow tip; post-cloacal hemipenal bulge distinct; a single enlarged, domed cloacal spur on each side; longitudinal middorsal furrow weak on the tail, lateral furrow absent; median subcaudal series begin on the fifth tail segment consisting of transversely enlarged, smooth, subimbricate scales, approximately 35% tail width on the fifth segment, ~90% beyond the 17th segment, laterally bordered by large subimbricate scales, size decreasing laterally and dorsally to slightly larger than dorsal granular scales; tail segments are weakly delineated, first 15 segments with a transverse row of six tubercles, tail tubercles consist of long erect, weakly keeled, conical spines obliquely pointed posteriorly.</p><p>Colouration in preservative: Dorsal surfaces of the head, body, limbs and tail primarily mid-brown. A darker brown stripe extends from the supranasal to the upper border of the orbit, a parallel brown stripe extends from the first supralabial across the lores to the orbit, extending beyond the posterior edge of the orbit as a short streak; the remaining dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head, including the labials, forelimbs and hind limbs are suffused with brown mottling; the pattern on the dorsal surface of the body essentially consists of two dorsolateral longitudinal rows of small irregularly shaped blotches, some of which join to form short streaks, and a vertebral row of more widely spaced blotches that are generally larger and may join with those of the dorsolateral rows; blotches extend onto the tail where they mostly join to form 11 transverse bands dorsally, a further two basally consist of paired blotches. Entire ventral surface of the head, body, limbs and tail appear plain light beige, however under magnification individual scales have varying numbers of minute black specks; precloacal-femoral pores are orange-brown. Colouration in life was not documented in the original description (Murray 1884b).</p><p>Variation. Variation of major mensural and meristic characters are presented in table 1. Topotypes examined of the series from which the neotype was designated agree overall in most characters with the neotype. Exceptions are as follows, on BMNH [18]87.9.22.11: tubercles on the forearm slightly larger, ~3 times granular scales size; secondary postmentals ~50% the size of primary postmentals, a pair of enlarged granular scales border posteriorly the primary postmentals; first supralabial borders the nostril along with two postnasals, a supranasal and rostral; granular scales on the dorsal surface of the head and frontal densely mixed with small domed tubercles, ~2–3 times adjacent granule size; female without pores or pitted scales; enlarged subcaudals begin on the fourth segment of the original tail; first segment with a transverse row of eight tubercular spines, followed by segments with rows of six.</p><p>On BMNH [18]87.9.22.9: dorsal pattern barely distinguishable; dorsal surface of the head and frontal densely covered in small tubercles; distal half of the tail regenerated, covered dorsally with small granular scales subequal to those of the original portion, without tubercular spines; transverse subcaudals begin on segment four. On BMNH [18]87.9.22.10: primary postmentals are very narrowly in contact behind the mental, secondary pair separated from the infralabials by a single chin shield of equal size to those forming 1–3 rows bordering the infralabials; no lateroventral fold on the body; largest dorsal tubercles approximately five times adjacent granule size; first three tail segments with a transverse row of seven tubercular spines, followed by segments with rows of six.</p><p>Distribution. Murray (1884b) reported the distribution of this species as “Upper Sind, Kushmore and Thool Talookas”, currently referring to Kashmor town (28°26’N, 69°35’E) and administrative division, Jakobabad District, Sindh Province, in southeastern Pakistan. The lost type specimen was reported to have been collected from “Bhaner, Upper Sind frontier”, currently Bhanar (28°12’10”N, 69°15’45”E), Jakobabad District, Sindh Province, in southeastern Pakistan. This species is now also known from the neotype locality, “Ural, Upper Sind”, which refers to Ural (27°54’0”N, 69°5’0”E), Sukkur District, Sindh Province, in eastern Pakistan. Ural is situated ~ 37 km south of Bhanar and all three confirmed localities lie along a ~ 76 km section of the Indus River valley.</p><p>Remarks. A brief clarification of specimen numbers is here warranted to avoid future confusion. In the BMNH specimen register the number provided is incorrect for the series of specimens (8719.22.8.17). On the jar containing the specimens are two labels, the most recent states 87.9. 22.8.17 and the older states 87.9.22.8–17. It is the older number that is correct for the series of specimens used in this study.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFB2C331FF0BFA07FC49FCBD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFAEC335FF0BFC94FB6DFD2D.text	485787BFFFAEC335FF0BFC94FB6DFD2D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus tenkatei Lidth	<div><p>Hemidactylus tenkatei Lidth de Jeude, 1895</p><p>(Figures 1 B, 2C, 2F, 3G, 3H)</p><p>Hemidactylus Brookii –– Gray, 1845:153 (partim).</p><p>Hemidactylus maculatus –– Anderson, 1879:800.</p><p>Hemidactylus Tenkatei Lidth de Jeude, 1895:121. Original type locality: “Rotti”.</p><p>Hemidactylus subtriedroides Annandale, 1905a:29 . Original type locality: “Tsagain, Upper Burma ”; Annandale, 1905b:Pl. II, Fig. 1.</p><p>Hemidactylus brookii subtriedroides –– Loveridge, 1941:246.</p><p>H. subtriedroides lectotype by present designation. BMNH 1946.8.25.54 (formerly BMNH 1906.8.10.11, originally ZSI 4134), adult male, “Tsagain, Upper Burma ” (= Sagaing, Sagaing Region, northern Myanmar), collected by J. Anderson.</p><p>H. subtriedroides paralectotype by present designation. ZSI 4135, adult male, details as for lectotype.</p><p>Other examined material. BMNH [18]87.2.26.1–5, “Pegu” (= Bago Region, Myanmar); BMNH [18]93.11.17.9–11, “Theyetmyo, Burma ” (= Thayet City [19°19’30”N, 95°10’59”E], Thayet District, Magwe Region, Myanmar); BMNH 1926.10.30.46, “Koepang, S. Timor, Malay Peninsula” (= West Timor, Indonesia); BMNH 1947.3.6.48, “Borneo” (= “ Australia ”––currently mislabeled, see above section “ Syntypes of Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845 ” for explanation–– paralectotype of H. brookii).</p><p>Etymology of H. subtriedroides . The specific epithet subtriedroides is derived from the species H. subtriedrus with the Greek suffix – oides, meaning “like” or “looks like”, from which it was considered in the original description to be most similar in appearance.</p><p>Definition. Hemidactylus tenkatei can be distinguished from all currently described South and Southeast Asian members of Hemidactylus based on the following combination of characters: adult SVL 47.2–61.7 mm; 9–12 supralabials, 9–10 infralabials; primary postmental shield width is subequal to that of the first infralabial, secondary pair broadly in contact with second infralabials, contact zone between primary postmentals is equal to contact zone between primary postmentals and mental; ear opening oval; 16–20 almost longitudinal tubercle rows at mid dorsum, largest tubercles 11–13 times size of surrounding granules; subdigital lamellae 5–6 on digit I and 7–9 on digit IV of pes, enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes extend to the base of the digit; 5–8 precloacal-femoral pores on each thigh separated medially by 5–7 non-pore-bearing scales, non-pore-bearing scale size subequal to pore-bearing scales; ventrolateral row of oblique spines on the tail laterally compressed and sharply pointed, subcaudals completely transverse the tail width from approximately mid-length of original tail (Fig. 2 F); 2–3 medium sized, bluntly conical cloacal spurs in series, with/without an additional large triangular dorsoventrally flattened spur posteriorly, separated by a short diastema of flat scales.</p><p>Comparisons. Hemidactylus tenkatei is here compared with the morphologically most similar Asian Hemidactylus species occurring east of the western Pakistan border. It differs from H. gujaratensis by its higher number of tubercle rows across the dorsum, 16–20 (vs. 12–14), and 5–8 precloacal-femoral pores on each thigh (vs. 12–14); from H. treutleri which it appears to most closely resemble morphologically by smaller adult size, SVL to 61.7 mm (vs. to 70.2 mm) and ventrolateral row of oblique spines on the tail laterally compressed and sharply pointed (vs. triangular, horizontal dorsoventrally flattened tubercles with rounded tips). From H. brookii, H. gleadowi, H. kushmorensis and H. parvimaculatus by larger size, SVL to 61.7 mm (vs. SVL to 55.8 mm, 43.1 mm [44 mm], 51.4 mm, and 51.5 mm, respectively), total 10–16 precloacal-femoral pores separated medially by 5–7 non-pore-bearing precloacal scales (vs. 20–31 precloacal-femoral pores separated medially by &lt;4 non-pore-bearing scales), 2–3 medium sized, bluntly conical cloacal spurs in series, usually with an additional large triangular dorsoventrally flattened spur separated posteriorly by a short diastema of flat scales (vs. 1–2 small sized, domed or conical cloacal spurs, without an additional enlarged spur posteriorly), and subcaudals completely transverse the tail width from approximately mid-length of original tail (vs. from the distal third). It can be distinguished further from H. kushmorensis and H. brookii by largest dorsal tubercles 11–13 times size of surrounding granules (vs. 5–7 and 6–7 times, respectively), and further from H. kushmorensis by 7–9 lamellae on digit IV of pes (vs. 10), ear opening oval (vs. circular), contact zone between the primary postmentals is equal to contact zone between the primary postmentals and mental (vs. primary postmentals narrowly in contact with each other); further from H. gleadowi by tubercles of the parietal region considerably smaller than largest canthal scales (vs. size subequal), enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes extend to the base of the digit (vs. lamellae series begins at proximal ~20% digit length).</p><p>Condition of H. subtriedroides types. The lectotype has constriction damage to the neck and left hind thigh due to previous tightly tied tags; now two tags are present, the original metal ZSI tag tied around the pelvis and the current BMNH number on the right hind limb. The regenerated tail portion was originally severed and is currently attached by a stitch. The lectotype is otherwise complete. The paralectotype has damage to the skin on the supraocular region and at the rear of the head; constriction damage to the neck (position of the current ZSI number) and to both left and right thighs (no tags present); the complete tail is present but detached from the first segment.</p><p>Description of H. subtriedroides lectotype. BMNH 1946.8.25.54, adult male. A summary of mensural and meristic data is provided in table 2. A medium sized species of Hemidactylus (SVL 61.7 mm); head distinct from neck, forehead flat, lores rounded and frontal region slightly concave; snout longer than orbit diameter; scales on snout circular, slightly enlarged and rounded, largest on the canthal region, size subequal to the smaller tubercles on the parietal, size gradually decreasing to become small heterogenous granular scales across the frontal; supraoculars covered with homogenous, small granular scales; dorsal and lateral surfaces of the head posterior to the orbit covered with small granular scales densely mixed with small flattened to domed tubercles, size increasing laterally and posteriorly; twelve interorbital granular scales across the narrowest point of the frontal; canthus rostralis rounded; pupil vertically elliptical, with crenellated edges; supraciliaries small and pointed posteriorly, becoming rounded and size increasing anterodorsally, spinose posteriorly; ear opening deep, narrowly oval, and obliquely orientated posterodorsally, lacking enlarged tubercles on anterior edge; orbit diameter slightly greater than orbit to ear distance; rostral subrectangular, with medial groove dorsally, extending to half of the rostral depth; rostral depth less than half its width, contacted by nostrils, supralabial I, one internasal and two circular, slightly enlarged supranasals; nostrils circular, oriented dorsolaterally, nostril in contact with supralabial I, two postnasals, supranasal and rostral; 10/10 (left/right) supralabials; 9/9 (left/right) infralabials; mental subtriangular, wider than it is long (MenL/MenW 82.8%); two paired postmentals, primary pair subequally in contact with each other and the mental, secondary pair not in contact with each other, ~70% the size of the first and rounded posteriorly, no enlarged chin shields border the posterior edge of the primary postmentals; one to three rows of enlarged elongated scales border the lower edge of the infralabials, size gradually increasing laterally from the small throat granular scales; endolymphatic sacs indistinct.</p><p>Body slightly compressed dorsally, ventrolateral fold weak; dorsum covered with uniform, small granular scales, interspersed with large tubercles, those of the nape are smallest and conical, size increasing posteriorly, tubercles of the anterior paravertebral rows are slightly oval longitudinally with a weak median keel, laterally becoming more conical to transversally oval, primarily without a weak keel, largest are approximately 13 times the size of surrounding granular scales; 20 mostly linear rows at midbody, 34 in a paravertebral line from back of the skull to the area above the vent, intertubercle distance varies randomly; lateral and gular granular scales grade suddenly into large, smooth, subimbricate ventrals; preanal depression absent; precloacal-femoral pores number 7/7 (left/right), widely separated medially by five non-pore-bearing scales; precloacal scales between the pore series and the cloaca are not enlarged relative to ventrals.</p><p>Forelimbs slender; dorsal surface of the upper forelimb covered with small flat to slightly imbricate scales, size decreasing ventrally appearing granular; posterior dorsal surface of the lower forelimb covered with small granular scales of subequal size to dorsals and intermixed with slightly enlarged bluntly conical tubercles of subequal size to those on the head, slightly imbricate scales of the upper forelimb extend along the anterior dorsal surface of the lower forelimb on which they increase in size and become more imbricate, smaller imbricate scales cover the dorsal surface of the manus; hind limbs relatively short; dorsal surface of the hind limbs and posterior thigh covered with small granular scales moderately interspersed with larger domed to bluntly conical tubercles, largest being of equal size to the largest dorsal tubercles, ventral surfaces of hind limbs with flat subimbricate scales; ventral surface of the manus and pes covered with smooth, rounded granular scales; digits relatively short, flattened, a small curved claw on all digital tips; distal phalanges elevated; each digit with mostly divided lamellae, numbering on right manus (total: divided) I (5: 2), II (7: 5), III (7: 5), IV (8: 6) and V (7: 5); and on right pes I (5: 2), II (7: 5), III (7: 4), IV (8: 5) and V (7: 2); basal subdigital lamellae narrow, enlarged lamellae series under digit IV of pes extend to the base of the digit; interdigital webbing absent.</p><p>Only the first segment of the tail is original, the remaining length is regenerated; dorsally compressed and oval in cross section, longer than snout to vent length; slightly constricted at the base and tapering gradually to a narrow tip; post-cloacal hemipenal bulge distinct; two enlarged, bluntly conical cloacal spurs on each side; longitudinal middorsal and lateral tail furrows absent; median subcaudal series begin close to the base of the regenerated tail portion consisting of transversely enlarged, smooth, subimbricate scales, increasing to approximately 80% tail width by the fourth subcaudal, laterally bordered by large posteriorly rounded subimbricate scales, and size rapidly decreasing laterally and dorsally where they are twice dorsal granule size; regenerated tail portion unsegmented and without enlarged tubercles; basal most and only original segment with a transverse row of six (left side damaged) posteriorly angled, unkeeled tubercular spines.</p><p>Colouration in preservative: Dorsal surfaces of the head, body, limbs and tail primarily mid-brown; a dorsal pattern if present is completely indistinguishable due to fading of the specimen, also noted in the original description (Annandale 1905a); entire ventral surface of the head, body, limbs and tail appear plain light beige, however under magnification individual scales have varying numbers of minute grey specks; precloacal-femoral pores are dark brown. Colouration in life was not documented in the original description (Annandale 1905a).</p><p>Variation. Mensural and meristic variation is provided for six additional specimens in table 2. The single paralectotype differs in characters from the lectotype as follows: central parietal area without slightly enlarged tubercles; chin shields bordering the secondary postmental pair posterolaterally are larger than those of the lectotype resembling a third pair of postmentals, not in contact with infralabials; full original tail present with transverse row of six dorsally flattened tubercles on each distinct tail segment, tubercles acutely angled basally becoming imbricate over surrounding granular scales distally; middorsal tail furrow present, lateral tail groove absent; subcaudals of the tail completely transverse the tail width at approximately mid-length; basally the tail narrows suddenly over first few segments before gradually tapering into a long point; as with the lectotype no dorsal pattern can be distinguished due to fading. The remaining specimens allocated to this species primarily fall within the above mentioned variation, but additionally: post nasal scales vary from 2–3; 2–3 medium sized conical cloacal spurs with the single enlarged posterior spur present on all but one specimen; one large internasal scale on all but one specimen which has two small internasals; 6–8 tubercles in transverse row on the first segment of tail; extracranial endolymphatic sacs visible ventrally through the skin of the jowels of two specimens; all specimens appear primarily plain brown, however two have feint darker bands on the tail, another has feint small dark brown spots on the dorsum similar in arrangement to H. cf. brookii individuals in figures 4A, C and D. A description of colour and pattern of Myanmar H. brookii group taxa is also provided by Zug et al. (2007).</p><p>Distribution. This species is here confirmed from specimens examined from Sagaing, Bago and Magwe Regions, in central and southern Myanmar. Loveridge (1941) considered the synonym H. brookii subtriedroides to range from “Tsagain to Fort Ava, near Mandalay” (= Sagaing city [21°52’56”N, 95°58’43”E], Sagaing Region, to ~ 5km south of the city at Fort Ava, Mandalay Region). The Pulau Roti, West Timor and “Australian” specimens examined here are likely introductions rather than naturally occurring populations.</p><p>Hemidactylus tenkatei</p><p>TToeIVLam 8 7 7 8 7 8 8 DToeIVLam 5 6 5 5 4 6 6 TFinILam 5 5 6 6 5 5 6 DFinILam 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 TFinIVLam 8 9 8 8 8 7 8 DFinIVLam 6 – 6 6 4 5 6 SupraLab 10/10 11 / 12 11 9 11 11 9 /10 InfraLab 9/9 10/10 10 9 9 9 9/10 TubRow 20 16 20 16 17 17 16 CloacSpur 2/2 3/2 3/0 2/2 3/3 4/3 3/4 VScaleRow 31 – 32 29 33 38 32</p><p>The description of several key defining characters provided by Zug et al. (2007) of other Myanmar collections appear to correspond with this species, e.g., low precloacal-femoral pore numbers in widely separated series. Though these populations should be compared in detail before confirming additional localities in Myanmar, this species is likely widespread in Myanmar. Schleich &amp; Kästle (2002) includes a sizeable part of northeast India on their range map for this species (as H. brookii subtriedroides) however I can not find the source information of this extended range. It is suspected that their source is based on a misinterpretation of Annandale (1912) who reports specimens from Sadiya (= Sadiya town, Tinsukia District, Assam State) in a paper otherwise dealing primarily with collections from the State of Arunachal Pradesh. These specimens were referred by Annandale to H. brookii, and though he postulated that “ H. subtriedroides from Upper Burma ….should probably be regarded as a variety [of H. brookii]”, he did not include it in the synonymy and thus was merely taking the opportunity to comment on the species, without allocating the Sadiya specimens to the name H. subtriedroides . Later in the same paper Annandale (1912:51) again refers to these specimens as H. brookii . I have examined specimens of H. “ brookii ” from numerous localities in Bangladesh and northeast India (West Bengal, Assam and Tripura) but none correspond to this species, thus it should not be considered a part of the Indian fauna until it is verified by referred specimens.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFAEC335FF0BFC94FB6DFD2D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
485787BFFFAAC33AFF0BF991FB14F8AD.text	485787BFFFAAC33AFF0BF991FB14F8AD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon 1853	<div><p>What is Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon, 1853 ?</p><p>Hemidactylus subtriedrus was described as a questionable new species or “variety” of H. triedrus from Nellore District (now Amamrajeevi Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh), based primarily on the knowledge of the local Yanadees people who considered the two species as distinct (Jerdon 1853). The characters described to distinguish it from the nominate form were vague except that there were fewer dark bands on the body of H. subtriedrus . Other differences such as fewer white tubercles, smaller trihedral scales and paler colour, are variations that can be commonly seen within several populations currently referred to H. triedrus . Apparently only Jerdon examined the type specimens. Stoliczka (1871, 1872) discussed specimens identified as H. subtriedrus, collected by Blanford in 1871 from near Ellore (Blanford 1879). Annandale (1905b) examined one of the specimens discussed by Stoliczka (1872) and regarded it morphologically intermediate between H. subtriedrus and H. triedrus, but considered it as conspecific with H. triedrus and further questioned the validity of H. subtriedrus . Annandale’s (1905b) list of Indian gekkonids marks H. subtriedrus as a species not represented in the ZSI collection, indicating that the type specimens were already lost by 1905. Theobald (1876) provides two accounts of the species, first within the section dealing with Hemidactylus where he briefly summarised the diagnosis of Jerdon (1853) (Theobald 1876:75, as H. sub-triedrus). Then, within the section dealing with Gymnodactylus as H. subtriedrus, he provides another description to include scale counts and colouration of specimens, which could correspond with H. triedrus (Theobald 1876:85–– ibidem.:237, indexed as Gymnodactylus subtriedrus). This error is corrected in the Errata et addenda (Theobald 1876:ix) where the second account (on pg. 85) is suggested to be removed, but not incorporated into the earlier description (on pg. 75). Boulenger (1885) further complicated the taxonomy of H. subtriedrus . He gave, for the first time, lamellae and labial scale counts, which he considered to differentiate H. subtriedrus from H. triedrus . These characters were obtained from a single subadult female specimen also collected by Blanford, from Khammam District, northern Andhra Pradesh, approx. 370 km north of the type locality. He also erroneously gave the type locality as Ellore. Boulenger (1890), repeated these characters but omitted the Khammam locality from the distribution, mentioning only Nellore and Ellore. Smith (1935) repeated the diagnosis provided by Boulenger (1885), which subsequently formed the basis of all future identifications of H. subtriedrus in literature. Of the above mentioned authors, Stoliczka (1871, 1872), Theobald (1876), Annandale (1905b) and Smith (1935) all doubted the validity of H. subtriedrus based on specimens from Nellore, and/or Ellore.</p><p>This species has began appearing in publications with new localities only recently, however, these studies did not have specimens from the type locality or nearby, instead they relied on the diagnosis of H. subtriedrus provided in Smith (1935), not Jerdon (1853), for identifying their specimens. Mahony (2009a:34) identified, without discussion, the voucher specimen ZSI 24151 as Hemidactylus cf. maculatus, previously reported as H. subtriedrus by Sanyal and Dasgupta (1990), and later cited by Chandra and Gajbe (2005). Javed et al. (2011) concurs with the aforementioned correction along with a detailed description of the eastern H. maculatus morphotype, and corrects other misidentifications from northern Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (Javed et al. 2009). I have examined all specimens labeled as H. subtriedrus in the ZSI and BMNH, except the Ellore specimen (Stoliczka 1871, 1872; Blanford 1879; Annandale, 1905b). If it still exists, it is likely mixed in the general collection of H. triedrus, and attempts should be made to source it by future revisers. The specimen described by Boulenger (1885, 1890) from Khammam District, northern Andhra Pradesh (BMNH [18]74.11.11.1) and a specimen apparently not referred in literature from Ganjam District, central Orissa (ZSI 25780) also appear to be referable to H. cf. maculatus as defined by Javed et al. (2011). Bauer et al. (2010a) propose the validity of H. subtriedrus based on molecular phylogenetic divergence between captive specimens of H. subtriedrus (from India) and H. triedrus (from India and Pakistan). In light of the history of taxonomic confusion regarding H. subtriedrus, a morphological characterisation of the specimen sampled by Bauer et al. (2010a) would be necessary to verify a proposal of validity of this species.</p><p>In summary, the only reliable morphological information on the species H. subtriedrus is the original description. All additional localities and morphological information provided by subsequent authors were based on a comparison with a specimen initially described by Boulenger (1885), representing H. cf. maculatus (sensu Javed et al. 2011), or are applicable to other species. Jerdon (1853) described several characters in the original description of H. subtriedrus that differ from H. cf. maculatus (sensu Javed et al. 2011), e.g., largest adult measured by Jerdon was 6½ inches total length (= 165 mm) (vs. 259 mm), and “…number of femoral pores is the same [as H. triedrus]”, total pores 12–28 representing the maximum range for H. triedrus populations according to Smith (1935) (vs. total pores 42–50, Javed et al. 2011). Based on these considerable differences H. subtriedrus s.s. is not conspecific with H. cf. maculatus (sensu Javed et al. 2011). The nomenclatural status of H. subtriedrus is currently unstable as the type specimens are apparently lost or originally never deposited (Stoliczka 1872; Annandale 1905b; Das et al. 1998; pers. obs. 2007, 2009) and thus referable to a nomen dubium. The species is therefore taxonomically ambiguous and in lieu of a taxonomic review of H. triedrus, I propose that Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon, 1853 be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Hemidactylus triedrus (Daudin, 1802) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/485787BFFFAAC33AFF0BF991FB14F8AD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Mahony, Stephen	Mahony, Stephen (2011): Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3042: 37-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278832
